Would you rather have a weak elected leader, or strong unelected leader?

So how about a link?

 

This statement proves your opinion on this matter invalid, whether that is from extreme ignorance, or dishonesty. As someone who is on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and followed the Democratic Primary closely-- in fact, registered as a Democrat, just so I could support Bernie (Sanders)-- I can assure anyone who is so clueless to not already know this, that Biden was absolutely NOT the choice of "the most fanatic liberals (IOW communists)." That last parenthetical part of your quote, is also detached from reality, but sticking to the first falsehood/delusion you expressed, there were many candidates favored by more liberal/progressive/leftist Democrats, including Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and even my third choice, Andrew Yang (my second choice, had been very moderate candidate, Colorado Senator Michael Bennett, because I do not base my choices upon merely where someone sits on a spectrum; I value intelligence, integrity, independence, character, philosophy, sincerity, honesty, and so on). Joe Biden was the most centrist/conservative of Democrats' choices (and not even on my list). In fact-- oh boy, get ready to have your fantasy world rocked, by another fact-- the majority of Democrats, are moderates, not liberals.

I can admit, however, that I had been wrong. I now believe that Biden had been the Democrat with the best chance of appealing to independents, and moderate Republicans, and so, of winning (as Biden did, FYI). I also give him high marks, on dealing with the wide array of pressing problems, overall, which he both inherited and had arise, in this year and a half, or so. He is not a dictator, and needs to work with others (including Republicans) to get things done. Many problems, especially longstanding ones, take time to be solved. And lastly, of course, a President does not control all events, so as to necessarily have the ability to solve every problem, even with cooperation. Though I don't agree with him 100%, I know he has not always been right, and I think there is more that he should be doing, to address certain issues, I cannot imagine anyone else having been, all in all, more effective, dealing with the gamut of challenges he has faced, and is facing. The moderate Democrats chose well.

 

What has he done since taking office to confirm your view that he is centrist?

 

Dude, you have a long history of refusing to acknowledge the existence of my provided evidence and then whining when told that said evidence has already been presented to you.

It has already been presented.

... because it's already been provided.

It's been provided. You simply refuse to acknowledge its existence.

You have no idea what a fact even is. It is not a universal truth nor is it a proof. Current events are not my feelings; they are current events.

Facts is not a language either. Holy moley...........

 

No need for a link. The recent SC state supreme court decision speaks for itself. The actions of Gavin Newsom (in violation of the state and federal constitutions) speak for themselves. Joe Biden's attempt at an invasive medical procedure mandate speaks for itself.

 

I have yet to be presented with any actual evidence.

False. Which is why you will STILL refuse to provide it and will run away and hide by pretending you've provided it when you never actually did.

False. Which is why you will STILL refuse to provide it and will run away and hide by pretending you've provided it when you never actually did.

False. Which is why you will STILL refuse to provide it and will run away and hide by pretending you've provided it when you never actually did.

You and your fellow conspiracy theorists have offered only feelings.

False. Which is why you will STILL refuse to provide it and will run away and hide by pretending you've provided it when you never actually did.

 

blah blah blah blah blah

Thus, you are a liberal.

Yes, Bernie was the candidate who liberal voters wanted. The DNC screwed them over though.

He had the same agenda as most of the other liberals up on that stage, and since a growing number of liberals are "fanatic liberals", they will ultimately vote for anyone with a D next to their name no matter how bad they are.

Sanders was who liberals actually wanted.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, then you would've voted for Trump over Biden... Biden has no intelligence. He can't even form a coherent thought half the time even when reading from a teleprompter. If you value intelligence, then you wouldn't've voted for a dementia patient over a successful businessman.

Same goes for most of these traits as well.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA not even close. You also seem to be completely forgetting about Tulsi Gabbard. Yes, she ran, and she was by far the most "conservative" of the liberals in the field. She was the only one on that side who didn't completely repulse me.

There is no such thing as a "moderate". It's just a made up "feel good" word because many people don't wish to be viewed as being "extreme" or "close minded".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's TOO FUNNY. He didn't appeal to hardly anyone, which is why he had to be INSTALLED rather than elected. The crowds of people were all at the Trump rallies, dude (and still are).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA he didn't inherit any problems from Trump.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is that why he was attempting to mandate that people undergo invasive medical procedures in order to keep their jobs?? If that's not authoritarian/tyrannical/etc, idk what is.

Nobody said they did.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... that person's name is Donald J. Trump ... These problems either didn't exist when he was in office or they were well under control.

 

How would an unelected leader impact us more than one that is elected? The former can only talk, while the latter can legislate.

 

That is the reason, that I am happily surprised with Biden, after having very limited expectations: he has not followed a strictly centrist path. While I know there are many of you, on the Right, who take this as proof that someone else is pulling his strings, I find it eminently more reasonable to see this as Biden's own strategy and attempt, to unite his own caucus, which had clearly been so divided, between its more conservative, or moderate, and its more liberal, or far left (which would still be rather middle of the road, at best, in much of Western Europe) wings.

Though it took some time, I think there is more cohesion, and somewhat less antagonism, between these extremes of the Party. Obviously, there will always be disagreements, between these differing perspectives, often serving different parts of the country, wherein reside varying political attitudes. Also, there is only so much that any one leader can do. But-- with a lot of help from Republicans-- most Democrats in Congress are now on the same page, at least.

 

Representative Gabbard, in not only my, but I'm sure many others' opinion, did not have the requisite experience, to make her a credible Presidential candidate. While I credit her for her military background, that is far from enough, on its own.

I take it that you are, here, speaking for Republicans. I will still correct you, that this answer of yours, only paints you as an extremist, who disqualifies all views that don't go "all in," for one "side" or the other. The "great, silent majority," is almost by definition, moderate, in their views. They are, for example, not in favor of eliminating abortion, but nor are they comfortable with abortion on demand, with no restrictions whatsoever. On this, and on issue after issue, they fall in the middle, between the extremes, your polarizing attitude, notwithstanding.

This answer can be described as nothing other than "clueless." Our Covid response, was "under control," when Trump left? WRONG. Our economy was thriving, at Trump's departure? Where were you? Your statement is divorced from reality. Also, the quick approaching deadline for our exit from Afghanistan, Trump negotiated and so poorly handled, with the Taliban, was all cued up, for a debacle. Even worse, was the way the Trump Administration had mucked up the gears of our legal immigration system, grinding things to a crawl, which has exacerbated our troubles at the border, & our lack of capacity to efficiently deal with the numbers; which the practice of the border police, under Trump, of not detaining migrants, in 83% of agents' encounters with them, but only sending them back in the direction, from which they'd come, only allowed the problem to grow. Then, on his way out the door, Trump spread the lie that Biden was going to have an "open border" policy; many of the illegal crossers may as well have been carrying invitations, signed by Trump.

 

Experience in/at what, exactly? What "requisite experience" does Joe Biden have that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't that makes him "credible" and leaves her as "not credible"?

You are taking it wrong then. I don't speak for anyone other than myself.

"Extremist", like "moderate", is just another meaningless buzzword.

No, I just disqualify at the outset all arguments based on meaningless buzzwords.

You are still saying nothing meaningful. What does "moderate" mean?

Made up claims based on made up numbers.

Here, you are saying that valuing the lives of all children is an "extremist/fringe" position, but condoning the killing for convenience of some children is a "moderate/measured" position.. That's completely asinine.

It was perfectly fine. He left it up to the States, as it should be.

Trump didn't shut down our economy. State governors did. Blame THEM for that.

You can't blame Trump for what happened under Biden's watch. Trump wasn't the dumbass who had military leave before getting civilians out. That was BIDEN. It was also yet another country that we should've never been in to begin with.

You're gonna try to blame the border crisis on Trump too??? hahahahahaha TOO FUNNY. They didn't come flooding in wearing their Biden t-shirts until Biden was installed.

hahahahahahaha TOO FUNNY. Biden is refusing to secure our southern border (protecting the States from invasion), in violation of the US Constitution. He should be immediately impeached on that basis alone.

 

I would just like to note, from the top-- and it is hard to believe that this has never come up with you, from anyone else-- that the way you answer posts, is not conducive to a coherent conversation; that is, your short answers generally make no reference to their actual subject, to which you usually refer to only as "this," or "that. If I were to follow suit, it would quickly be impossible for anyone to follow what either of us was talking about, in any short blurb about any number of topics.

Yes, I have faulted Biden for the manner of his withdrawal, myself. But, by your own words, one cannot blame Biden, for our being there, "to begin with." Though Obama did not heed his advice, Biden has been on record, against staying in Afghanistan, for at least a decade. And while numerous politicians have talked about withdrawal, it was Biden who ultimately delivered, to get it done, even if it was not in the best organized fashion. One must, at least in part, also fault our military advisors of the President, upon whose word, he of course relied.

Also, your absolving Trump from responsibility, is unbased in fact. It was Trump who negotiated the short timeline, and he who drew down our forces to too small a contingent, to guarantee the evacuation of all our allies, across the country. Biden, understandably, did not want to send more forces, back in. So Trump screwed the pooch, as they say, for Biden to have to finish the job, so poorly begun under his predecessor. Further, this exit required the vetting of thousands of our Afghani partners, but the Trump Administration, under Stephen Miller's direction, had all but completely closed off the faucet, of Afghanis being processed. There should have been a considerable percentage of them, already cleared by Trump's Admin., which had OK'd our exit; instead, barely any had been vetted. This falls on Trump, as giving two major assists, in the botch. This is even without mentioning the Trump Administration's failure to hold the Taliban, accountable to the deal they'd struck, which had required earnest peace negations, with the Afghanistan government (which Trump had excluded from the negotiations-- signalling his lack of commitment to them, or that part of the deal). Of course, the Taliban planned to retake the country, as soon as America was out, so made no sincere peace offers, to those they planned to evict.

For Trump's part, all he cared about, was that they didn't kill any American soldiers, while Trump was still President, to make him look good, even if-- and one can be forgiven for thinking that this was also part of the plan-- this left an untenable position for his successor, with insufficient troops to have any influence over most of the country, and with too short a timeline to do the vetting & evacuation necessary, to meet the Trump Administration's timeline, for which they, themselves, were not at all adequately preparing. This forced Biden to necessarily miss, by a couple of months, that deadline, which had been the only thing protecting U.S. troops, under Trump's half- baked agreement.

I am already tiring of needing to explain well known facts, to one who clearly has no intention of admitting any thoughts, that counter his fantasy narrative. The states had no choice but to shut down, in order to
throw cold water on the pandemic, burning like a wildfire, through their states. This, by itself, would ravage the economy, left unchecked.

No, the states do not have the resources or logistical expertise to deal with a vaccine rollout of this magnitude. That is what we're talking about here, right? And, of course, the supply needed to be coordinated with the states. It would be ridiculous to expect every state to negotiate on its own, with each of the three different manufacturers, for their own supply. This illustrates the difference between the impractical image of your ideological view of government, and government's real- world, pragmatic purposes, which most people recognize.

Once more, you are mischaracterizing things. That is only your own interpretation of the abortion issue which, FYI, most Americans DO NOT SHARE. This is a fact, whether or not you see that truth as "asinine."

Speaking of which, I will wait until you offer a valid argument, on its face, at least, before I respond again.

 

This reminds me of all those bots defending Putin.

 

And your inexplicable-- or at least unexplained-- associations, are of any relevance, or interest, why?

 

They may find some others that read it the same way.

 

So it is a form of signaling, for those others, who think in network with you, so to speak?



Heartburn said: ↑
This reminds me of all those bots defending Putin.

I can only take your mental image "of all those bots defending Putin" to mean-- based on this reply, following all my points-- that my arguments are too good for you to even attempt to counter.

Accordingly, I will respond: thank you.

 

Leaders should be weak. They are servants to others not themselves. But then again I'm conservative in the classical sense of the word.

 

You only made two points: "Biden didn't do it", and "He had no choice because Trump............"

 

Now that is the kind of simplistic answer, that I might associate with a bot-level argument.

 

What's the difference if they both suck in multiple ways?

 

Nah, bots do it with a word salad.

 

I understand what is meant by "elected" and "unelected" but I do not know what you are referring to on the matter of "weak" and "strong". Are you saying that a weak leader dedicates himself to Democratic principles but a strong one eagerly commits his nation to war ....or do you mean something else?

 

Won't answer the poll because I find it pigeon holes any response. I would prefer a strong, elected, leader who always puts America First! No more selling out for profit!